2012 Election
State Legislators Debate Eyman's 1185
Just in time for today's state Supreme Court hearing—a coalition of education groups, including the state teachers' union, education reformers, and Democratic state legislators, is challenging the constitutionality of Tim Eyman's two-thirds requirement on the state legislature to raise taxes—KCTS aired a debate on 1185 last night.
Although the debate—starring Seattle state Rep. Reuven Carlyle (D-36), who opposes 1185, and conservative state Rep. Ed Orcutt (R-18), who supports it—didn't directly address the high-minded legal arguments over the two-thirds rule, it certainly took up the same fundamental questions, offering a sneak peek at just what's at stake in the state's highest court today.
Carlyle characterized the rule as a "radical," "undemocratic" "tyranny of the minority" that allows 17 state legislators (17 being the number of senators it takes to squash a tax increase) to overrule the will of 147 other state legislators. "1185 makes his [Orcutt's] vote more valuable than my vote for the people [we're] both elected to serve," Carlyle said.
In addition to getting theoretical (quoting Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Papers, which asserted that "the fundamental principle of free government is reversed under supermajority"), Carlyle also talked about the practical implications of the rule during the recession, a time when college "tuition has doubled" and social services are "imploding" because the legislature "has no flexibility whatsoever."
"Under two-thirds," Carlyle argued, "the only modifications made to our budget are exclusively cuts. This is a radical, very aggressive move that shuts down the ability of the legislature to look in a thoughtful, measured way at a more balanced approach."
Another practical impact? A double standard for passing tax loopholes—more than 600 of them exist in the state—and repealing them. "It requires a simple majority to create a tax exemption, but two-thirds to eliminate that same tax exemption," Carlyle said.
Orcutt didn't spend much time addressing the theoretical issues himself (he dismissed the founding fathers as being from "a different time" (an odd argument for a conservative) and added, curiously, that our democratic system isn't based on "pure democracy," adding "51 percent can't impose their beliefs on the other 49 percent."
He also flipped Carlyle's numbers game argument, asking: "Should 67 people be able to raise taxes on 6.1 million? Shouldn't it at least be 100?"
However, Orcutt mainly made the case that the two-thirds rule was politically necessary—and, cleverly appropriating Carlyle's line of argument, said it "forces us into a balanced approach"—meaning that the legislature had to reform government to make it more efficient rather than relying on new taxes to make programs work.
"Before you raise taxes, you have to make sure you explore every other option," Orcutt said.
And he added that the rule is working. Rebutting Carlyle, Orcutt said that the legislature had actually repealed a couple of tax breaks last session (including the big bank loophole on first mortgages.) He also said: If raising a tax is so important, why not pass it as a referendum to the people, which only takes a simple majority vote?
Ultimately, Orcutt asked Carlyle why, if he was so concerned with democracy, he wasn't concerned with the will of the voters who have repeatedly voted for the two-thirds rule, most recently in 2010?
Carlyle put the initiative process in context. noting that the biggest backers of 1185, including oil companies such as BP, Conoco Philips, and the Beer Institute in Washington, DC, spent money on the initiative as "direct retaliation for the legislature attempting to raise fees in their industries to mitigate the effects of stormwater runoff and alcohol abuse."
Carlyle concluded that the two-thirds rule "has eviscerated the ability of the legislature to function."
Although the debate—starring Seattle state Rep. Reuven Carlyle (D-36), who opposes 1185, and conservative state Rep. Ed Orcutt (R-18), who supports it—didn't directly address the high-minded legal arguments over the two-thirds rule, it certainly took up the same fundamental questions, offering a sneak peek at just what's at stake in the state's highest court today.
Carlyle characterized the rule as a "radical," "undemocratic" "tyranny of the minority" that allows 17 state legislators (17 being the number of senators it takes to squash a tax increase) to overrule the will of 147 other state legislators. "1185 makes his [Orcutt's] vote more valuable than my vote for the people [we're] both elected to serve," Carlyle said.
In addition to getting theoretical (quoting Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Papers, which asserted that "the fundamental principle of free government is reversed under supermajority"), Carlyle also talked about the practical implications of the rule during the recession, a time when college "tuition has doubled" and social services are "imploding" because the legislature "has no flexibility whatsoever."
"Under two-thirds," Carlyle argued, "the only modifications made to our budget are exclusively cuts. This is a radical, very aggressive move that shuts down the ability of the legislature to look in a thoughtful, measured way at a more balanced approach."
Another practical impact? A double standard for passing tax loopholes—more than 600 of them exist in the state—and repealing them. "It requires a simple majority to create a tax exemption, but two-thirds to eliminate that same tax exemption," Carlyle said.
Orcutt didn't spend much time addressing the theoretical issues himself (he dismissed the founding fathers as being from "a different time" (an odd argument for a conservative) and added, curiously, that our democratic system isn't based on "pure democracy," adding "51 percent can't impose their beliefs on the other 49 percent."
He also flipped Carlyle's numbers game argument, asking: "Should 67 people be able to raise taxes on 6.1 million? Shouldn't it at least be 100?"
However, Orcutt mainly made the case that the two-thirds rule was politically necessary—and, cleverly appropriating Carlyle's line of argument, said it "forces us into a balanced approach"—meaning that the legislature had to reform government to make it more efficient rather than relying on new taxes to make programs work.
"Before you raise taxes, you have to make sure you explore every other option," Orcutt said.
And he added that the rule is working. Rebutting Carlyle, Orcutt said that the legislature had actually repealed a couple of tax breaks last session (including the big bank loophole on first mortgages.) He also said: If raising a tax is so important, why not pass it as a referendum to the people, which only takes a simple majority vote?
Ultimately, Orcutt asked Carlyle why, if he was so concerned with democracy, he wasn't concerned with the will of the voters who have repeatedly voted for the two-thirds rule, most recently in 2010?
Carlyle put the initiative process in context. noting that the biggest backers of 1185, including oil companies such as BP, Conoco Philips, and the Beer Institute in Washington, DC, spent money on the initiative as "direct retaliation for the legislature attempting to raise fees in their industries to mitigate the effects of stormwater runoff and alcohol abuse."
Carlyle concluded that the two-thirds rule "has eviscerated the ability of the legislature to function."
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
